by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/4/14 5:31 PM

It’s not easy being pro-life in Hollywood. Tinseltown USA is notorious for its left-wing politics and actors and actresses who push all sorts of political causes that are politically correct or en vogue at the time.

But when it comes to abortion, a few Hollywood celebrities and entertainment icons are willing to speak out and say they are pro-life. Here are a few of them, in their own words:

Jack Nicholson

Nicholson’s opinions on abortion were formed by personal experience. He was a grown man when he discovered the woman he thought was his sister was actually his mother, and the woman he knew as his mother was his grandmother. His mother became pregnant as a teenager and was encouraged to have an abortion, even back in 1937, but she chose life for her son. The revelation that his sister was his mom was understandably difficult for Nicholson, and had a profound affect on him. For one, it made him pro-life:

I’m very contra my constituency in terms of abortion because I’m positively against it. I don’t have the right to any other view. My only emotion is gratitude, literally, for my life.

This short statement is full of humility, wisdom, and courage. Note that he says, “I don’t have the right to any other view.” He has understood, thanks to the knowledge that his own life almost never happened, that life is a gift for which we should all feel gratitude. His willingness to vocally oppose abortion in the face of Hollywood and his own political party is inspiring and should be encouraged.

Mel Gibson

Mel Gibson is not without controversy and he’s admittedly made some mistakes in his life. Still, Gibson has never wavered on the issue of life.

In a Barbara Walters interview in 1990, at the height of his fame, Gibson said:

One can’t decide for oneself who comes into this world and who doesn’t. That decision doesn’t belong to us.

Later, he vocally spoke out against life destroying embryonic stem cell research. He said this on a television commercial:

…[I]n 23 years embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single human cure. All it has yielded is tumors, rejection, and mutations. See bad science doesn’t attract venture capital. So why should the taxpayers be bled dry? This is Mel Gibson and I’m voting NO on Prop 71. Creating life simply to destroy it is wrong.

Patricia Heaton

Patricia Heaton is one of the few prominent pro-life women in Hollywood. Recently, LifeNews notedhow Heaton takes to Twitter to voice her pro-life convictions as she often does, most recently highlighting how abortions target a disproportionate number of black babies.

But where do her pro-life convictions come from? As she tells The Blaze, her pro-life views and Christian faith go hand in hand and that becoming a mother made it so abortion was something she felt more passionate about and gave her an additional reason to do so.

Heaton said, as far back as 2004, that she and her pro-abortion Hollywood colleagues didn’t see eye to eye on abortion – explaining why her name was not on a list of Hollywood celebs supporting a pro-abortion march that year.

“Many of the celebrities on the list are my friends,” Heaton explained, “but when it comes to championing abortion, we go our separate ways.”

“I find it impossible to subscribe to a philosophy that believes that the destruction of human life is a legitimate solution to a problem that is mostly social, economic and psychological,” said Heaton. “In reality, most women ‘choose’ abortion because they believe they have no other choice.”

Donald Trump

Donald Trump shocked attendees at a CPAC conferencewhen he declared himself pro-life after years of supporting the pro-abortion position.

“One thing about me, I’m a very honorable guy. I’m pro-life, but I changed my view a number of years ago. One of the reasons I changed… a friend of mine’s wife was pregnant, in this case married. She was pregnant and he didn’t really want the baby. And he was telling me the story,” Trump said. “He was crying as he was telling me the story. He ends up having the baby and the baby is the apple of his eye. It’s the greatest thing that’s ever happened to him. And you know here’s a baby that wasn’t going to be let into life.

Justin Bieber
A young Justin Bieber was widely criticized for his open stance on abortion. “I really don’t believe in abortion,” Bieber told Rolling Stone in 2011. “It’s like killing a baby.” When asked about cases of rape, the pop star said, “Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”

Bieber may have made mistakes in his life since then and needs to get on a more upstanding path, but he apparently still holds to his pro-life views.

Kenny Chesney
Chesney’s most notable example of pro-life advocacy is in the song he has called one of his favorites, “There Goes My Life.” It spent seven weeks at number one, and it tells the story of a teenager whose girlfriend gets pregnant and has the baby rather than having an abortion. The teen initially believes that his life has been ruined, but in the end, he realizes how much of a blessing the child is.

Jordin Sparks
Sparks has repeatedly participated in pro-life conferences as a volunteer and singer. She sang at Arizona’s Right to Life 2005 conference and attended the conference with Dr. Alveda King, the pro-life niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the keynote speaker at the event.

Sparks hasn’t been shy about her pro-life beliefs either. She appears on Fox & Friends last year with Brian Kilmeade who asked her questions based on emails from viewers. Sparks was asked about a ring she wears on her wedding ring finger even though she is 17 year-old and unmarried.

She said, without hesitation, that it was her Purity Ring, and that it says she’s waiting until she is married, and saving herself for true love.

Jim Caviezel
Jim Caviezel, famed for his role as Christ in The Passion of the Christ, and currently starring as the leading man in TV’s Person of Interest, is no stranger to being, well, different in Hollywood. From his publicly Catholic faith to his committed pro-life views, he stands in stark contrast to the typical movie star.

Caviezel’s personal life is even more remarkable than his incredible on-screen talent. Taking the road less traveled, Jim and his wife Kerri have adopted two children from China, both of whom had special needs.

Their first adopted child, Bo, came to the Caviezels after a traumatic first five years of life. The little boy had a brain tumor and had been abandoned before he was taken in by an orphanage and subsequently adopted by his loving parents. Bo is a remarkably boisterous child, and with the love he has received from Jim and Kerri, it is hard to believe that just a few short years ago he was struggling to survive in a hostile environment.

When asked how becoming a father had affected him, Caviezel told Catholic Digest, “Even though they’re adopted, it’s as strong as any instinct. That’s what blew me away. I always thought if I adopted that I wouldn’t have the same feeling [as I would] if they were genetically my own children. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

The actor told Catholic Digest in 2009 that being pro-life is more important to him than his career. He told the digest, “How are we so arrogant to think the 51.5 million babies who have died in this country… Look, I am for helping women. I just don’t see abortion as helping women. And I don’t love my career that much to say, ‘I’m going to remain silent on this.’”

Kathy Ireland
Kathy Ireland rose to fame in the 1980s as a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model. In 2011, Ireland was the keynote speaker at the Council for Life’s annual luncheon, where she professed her religious beliefs and detailed her journey from being an advocate for women’s right to choose to become a pro-life supporter.

As a supermodel who graced the covers of magazines world wide, Kathy Ireland told over 300 people gathered in Columbia, Mo., on September 24 she was told by photographers to “shut up and pose.”  Now this design company mogul tells those fighting for the pro-life cause to “speak the truth and never let anyone silence you.”

The former Sports Illustrated (SI) swimsuit cover model considered herself a “Pro-Choice Christian” until she dove into the medical books of her husband, an emergency room doctor.  She used those science texts to even change her husband’s view on abortion.  Then she did something many told her not to do—go on Bill Maher’s HBO show “Politically Incorrect” and take the pro-life view.

“I was told it was a lose-lose situation and would kill my business.  But I thought if I did this maybe one woman watching wouldn’t kill her baby,” Ireland shared.  Thankfully she had a business partner who encouraged her to do it, saying if one woman watching cancelled her abortion appointment, it would be so worth it.”

Nick Cannon
Nick Cannon, the rapper and husband of R&B/pop superstar Mariah Carey, released a song in 2005 entitled “Can I Live.” The song tells of Cannon’s near abortion death.

Phil Robertson

Robertson is very strongly pro-life.

In a video featuring Duck Dynasty’s Robertson, the TV star – in what appears to be a religious sermon – declares his pro-life stance on the issue of abortion.  When discussing the ethics of, and that there’s even a debate on, the issue, he asks, “What in the world happened to us?”

“Listen, from the time you started inside your mother’s womb, Thomas Jefferson had it right, you have the God-given right to life for crying out loud. You’re this long (pointing to his finger). You’re a week old inside your mother. They suck you out of there when you’re about like that (point to finger again). You wouldn’t be here tonight!

“And, when you got to be the size of my thumb, they suck you out. You wouldn’t be here. Then, you grow a little bigger, like my fist – and finally eight, nine months later you come out.

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/2/14 1:32 PM

Nathan Trapuzzano was a young 24-year-old man who served as a sidewalk counselor at a local abortion clinic in Indiana and had a baby on the way. Tragically, he was murdered in a shooting while out walking his neighborhood.

“I am saddened to report that a young man who served as a sidewalk counselor at one of Indianapolis’ abortion clinics was killed while walking near his home on Tuesday morning,” said Cathie Humbarger of Allen County Right to Life. “His wife is due to deliver their first baby next month.”

Indianapolis television station WISH-TV has more details on what happened:

From early evening on into the night Tuesday, patrol cars and extra eyes watched the streets where an innocent man was gunned down.

“This is a safe city and that’s why this murder is particularly troubling because this is a gentleman who was just living his life, who was shot dead for absolutely no reason,” said IMPD Southwest District Commander David Hofmann.

Police have now put up a picture of the victim, Nathan Trapuzzano, reminding officers why they are here: to look for the men responsible for his death.

Police plan to canvass the area over the next couple days, asking everyone for information, and talking with the community.

Late Tuesday afternoon, IMPD released surveillance video taken from outside a tire store moments before the shooting. It showed the victim walking towards the right of the screen with a suspect quickly trying to catch up. A short time later, both come back into view.

Police said while one man forced Trapuzzano between two businesses, another other acted as a lookout.

“You can’t even say it’s a shame, it’s worse than that. You know what I mean. It’s senseless situations,” said James Deamus-el of Indianapolis.

A donation web site has been set up to help Trapuzzano’s family. So far it has raised more than $22,000.

The governor of West Virginia has vetoed a bill that would have outlawed most abortions after 20 weeks gestation, claiming the bill is unconstitutional.

Despite being passed with overwhelming bipartisan support from both houses of the state legislature, Governor Earl Ray Tomblin vetoed the bill late Friday.

In a statement issued Friday, Gov. Tomblin explained that he felt House Bill 4588 had problems regarding its constitutionality and how it affected healthcare.

"I am advised, by not only attorneys from the legislature, but through my own legal team that this bill is unconstitutional as shown by actions of the Supreme Court of the United States," stated Tomblin.

"The bill is also problematic because it unduly restricts the physician-patient relationship. All patients, particularly expectant mothers, require the best, most unfettered medical judgment and advice from their physicians regarding treatment options."

Earlier that same day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit saida 20-week abortion ban in Texas is constitutional, and in Nov. the U.S. Supreme Court declined to stop that law from going into effect while the case was being debated in the courts.

Sponsored by Delegate David G. Perry and introduced in February, H.B. 4588 sought to provide legal protection for fetuses that could feel pain.

"The purpose of this bill is to protect unborn children who are capable of experiencing pain by prohibiting abortion after twenty weeks post-fertilization except when the mother has a medical emergency. The bill provides for civil and criminal remedies," read H.B. 4588's summary.

HB 4588 passed the House of Delegates in late February with 79 ayes, 17 nays, and 4 not voting. It passed the Senate amended in early March with 29 ayes and five nays. The House then passed the amended version on the same day in a vote of 83 ayes, 15 nays, and 2 not voting.

Margaret Chapman Pomponio, executive director of the pro-choice group West Virginia Free, said in a statement that she was pleased with the veto.

"We're encouraged that the governor listened to the medical community and the women of West Virginia," said Pomponio.

"Throughout the legislative session, doctors, nurses, their patients and patients' family repeated serious concerns with this bill ... but their voices were largely ignored."

Various pro-life groups denounced Tomblin's veto. West Virginians for Life President Wanda Franz stated that Tomblin "has placed himself in a minority position on this bill."

"We expect a groundswell of support leading up to the 2015 session," stated West Virginians for Life Legislative Coordinator John Carey. "Nothing the Governor has done has changed the fact there is a substantial body of scientific evidence that unborn babies from 20 weeks old feel pain."

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement that the governor's actions were a "shame."

"Shame on Governor Tomblin for turning his back on unborn children and women by vetoing a compassionate, common sense limit passed with overwhelming bipartisan support," said Dannenfelser.

by Steven Ertelt | Austin, TX | LifeNews.com | 3/27/14 11:26 PM

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling upholding the Texas law Wendy Davis opposed that was responsible for closing abortion clinics in the Lone Star State.

In November, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion indicating the Supreme Court would not yet get involved in a case that has abortion facilities there appealing a law that has closed numerous abortion clinics that can’t protect women’s health.

Before that, in a big victory for pro-life advocates, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Lee Yeakel of the Western District Court in Austin and restored key portions of a pro-life law in Texas that will ultimately stop abortions. Abortion clinics appealed that decision to the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia issued a ruling saying the high court would not stop the law while the case continued.

Now, the appeals court has issued a positive ruling, according to Texas Right to Life:

A panel of three judges in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released its ruling upholding HB2, Texas’ Pro-Life law, which took full effect in October of last year. The opinion affirms the constitutionality of the legislation passed last summer and rejects Planned Parenthood’s argument that HB2 places an “undue burden” upon abortionists, abortion facilities, and women seeking abortion.

The court upheld sections of the law that require abortionists hold admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and that the dangerous RU-486 abortion drug be administered according to FDA procedure.  The judges wrote,

“The district court held that parts of both provisions were unconstitutional and granted, in substantial part, the requested injunctive relief.  A motions panel of this court granted a stay pending appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld the stay.  We conclude that both of the challenged provisions are constitutional and, therefore, reverse and render judgment, with one exception, for the State.”

There is a minor caveat to the ruling, abortionists who have applied for admitting privileges prior to the law going into effect, but have not yet received a reply from local hospitals may continue to commit abortions until their applications for privileges are officially denied.

The court asserted that higher standards for an abortionist are, in fact, justified,

“During these proceedings, Planned Parenthood conceded that at least 210 women in Texas annually must be hospitalized after seeking an abortion.  Witnesses on both sides further testified that some of the women who are hospitalized after an abortion have complications that require an Ob/Gyn specialist’s treatment.”

This is the third time recently that this Court of Appeals has upheld Pro-Life policies attacked by abortion advocates.  The same court upheld Texas’ 2011 Sonogram Law and a policy that kept the abortion business Planned Parenthood out of the taxpayer-funded Women’s Health Program.

The decision on House Bill 2 has been expected ever since the New Orleans hearing in Januarywhere the three-judge panel heard Planned Parenthood’s attempts to convince them that such measures provide an undue burden to women seeking abortion.  However, these claims made in court apparently had little effect on the judges, who seem to be unimpressed with the exaggerated nature of the lawsuit and that Planned Parenthood requested the Supreme Court’s precedent establishing the meaning of “undue burden” be overlooked by the Fifth Circuit Court.

Planned Parenthood may have jumped the gun in making such broad and overarching undue burden arguments.  The 5th Circuit justices wrote in their opinion; Planned Parenthood’s case required evidence that could only be provided after the law has been sufficiently applied.  Namely, Planned Parenthood would have to present the court with a sufficient number of documented cases in which the provisions of HB2 caused a severe impediment to a woman seeking an abortion.

“Women deserve real doctors, not transient abortionists who have no connection to their patients or their communities. The health and safety of women is more important than an abortionist’s bottom line–including the bottom line of Planned Parenthood, which is the nation’s largest abortion seller,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. “Planned Parenthood’s opposition to these basic health requirements is simply additional evidence that they care more about profit than about what’s best for women.”

A district court had previously struck down the two provisions in Planned Parenthood of Texas Surgical Health Services v. Abbott while upholding the remainder of the larger law of which they were a part. Planned Parenthood did not challenge the law’s prohibition on abortions that take place at 20 weeks or later, a provision based on evidence that demonstrates the baby can feel pain at that stage.

The 5th Circuit concluded that “the State acted within its prerogative to regulate the medical profession by heeding these patient-centered concerns and requiring abortion practitioners to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.”

“Against Planned Parenthood’s claims that these women can be adequately treated without the admitting-privileges requirement, the State showed that many hospitals lack an Ob/Gyn on call for emergencies,” the opinion explains. “Requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges would also promote the continuity of care in all cases, reducing the risk of injury caused by miscommunication and misdiagnosis when a patient is transferred from one health care provider to another.”

“People may hold different views about abortion, but everyone can agree that Planned Parenthood should put the safety and health of women first,” Aden said. “Women’s lives should never play second fiddle to Planned Parenthood’s profit margin.”

Texas legislated in part because Planned Parenthood’s off-label usage of the drug led to numerous deaths and injuries to women.

by Lauren Enriquez | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 3/17/14 10:35 AM

Adopted at age nine from an orphanage, Mary Ann Kuharski knows first-hand that adoption is a blessing to parents and children alike. After she and her husband had their first two children, they began to consider adopting children with special needs.

Subsequently, they adopted six children domestically and abroad, and continued having children of their own. The total number of children in their home eventually grew to thirteen – and Mary Ann says that at one point, she had seven teenagers! After that, she says, “No one can tell me a problem I haven’t tackled.”

Mary Ann and her husband traveled far and wide to embrace their adopted children over the years: “We have one child from the Philippines, two from Vietnam. We have one from Calcutta, India, one Mexican-American who is partly American Indian, and one black American.”

Mary Ann faced parenting her large family with a positive perspective, with “humor and prayer,” she says, and she adds that “My philosophy is you can’t get through this life –if you are going to try to do it without humor and prayer, good luck.” Mary Ann kept things simple in her household, focusing on her ultimate goal, which she says is to help her children reach heaven. Above all else, she and her husband ensured that their family always attended church together.

She advocates that parents “lighten up” on the less important aspects of life, like expensive material possessions. Mary Ann recalls that her large family ‘s needs were met just fine with their one vehicle (a large van) and buying everything second-hand. Mary Ann’s husband earned the family’s sole income, and by thrifty living this was enough to support everyone’s needs.

As if raising thirteen kids were not enough of an extraordinary accomplishment, Mary Ann has been running Pro-Life Across America, an organization that spreads life-affirming values via a campaign of billboards. Last year alone, the organization ran seven thousand billboards. “We’re not here to condemn or judge,” she said. “We’re here to help that one person who sees an ad, or looks on the internet, and calls and says, ‘Do you have help for me?’

Kudos to Salt Lake’s CBS affiliate, KUTV, for running an interview with Mary Ann.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) expressed confidence Tuesday that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down the Health and Human Services' controversial contraception mandate that requires employers to pay for birth control, including those that can lead to the early termination of pregnancies.

Speaking to CP Insider on Tuesday, Cruz said he's "confident that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to strike down the contraceptive mandate."

Cruz also expressed his support for Hobby Lobby Inc., an Oklahoma-based company whose owners are opposed to having to pay for four types of birth control (two types of IUDs, and Plan B and EllaOne), under Obamacare's employer mandate, or pay $1.3 million in fines each day.

Hobby Lobby does provide insurance that covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives that the HHS mandate requires under Obamacare, but its owners have religious objections to providing coverage for items they believe destroy human life.

"Under Obamacare, the Obama administration has granted exemptions for big business, its granted exemptions for members of Congress, its granted exemptions for those who walk the corridors of power," Cruz told CP in an exclusive interview.

"And yet, it is denying that same fair treatment to those who are practicing their religious faith. That is contrary to the law, its contrary to the Constitution. The question in this case is whether the American government can force Americans to violate the dictates of their faith," Cruz added. "Under the Constitution, under the First Amendment, under centuries of our tradition the answer is 'no.'"

Cruz was seated in the press gallery at the Supreme Court to hear the 90 minutes of oral arguments in the case,Kathleen Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialty Store vs. Sebelius.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods Specialties of Pennsylvania argued before the Supreme Court that the HHS mandate forces them to violate their religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby is owned by the Green family who are Evangelical Christians, and Conestoga Woods is owned by the Hahn family who are Mennonite Christians.

Outside the courthouse protesters both supportive and critical of the HHS mandate held demonstrations amid heavy snowfall.

Barbara Green, a member of the family that owns and operates Hobby Lobby, said in a statement made to the press after oral arguments that she was "encouraged" by the proceedings.

"We were encouraged by today's argument. We are thankful that the Supreme Court took our case and we prayerfully await the Justices' decision," said Green.

Others, including Simon Brown of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, expressed a concern about the Court possibly ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.

Brown wrote in a blog entry that Hobby Lobby's success might lead to more troubling trends.

"If corporations gain the right to be exempted from one law on religious grounds, there is no telling how many other statutes religious fundamentalists will seek to ignore in the future – all in the name of conscience," wrote Brown.